Study: Indian-Americans have lowest rate of sudden unexpected infant deaths

[tao]

Indian-Americans have the highest percentage of sleeping with their babies among ethnic groups in New Jersey but the lowest rate of sudden unexpected infant death (SUID), a Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences study shows.

 

Researchers attributed this paradoxical finding to a variety of compensatory factors, including Indian-Americans' practice of placing their infants on their backs to sleep.

 

The study appears in the journal New Jersey Pediatrics.

 

"Conditions that substantially increase the risk of SUID while bed-sharing include smoking, alcohol use and maternal fatigue," said lead author Barbara Ostfeld, a professor of pediatrics at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. "Indian-Americans smoke and use alcohol less than other populations. In addition, grandparents tend to be very active in childcare, which reduces maternal fatigue. Apart from bed-sharing, poverty also increases the risk of SUID, and Indian-Americans have higher incomes."

 

The American Academy of Pediatrics considers bed-sharing to be a high risk factor in SUID, which includes sudden infant death syndrome, accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed, and ill-defined and unknown causes in children under one year old.

 

"There is strong clinical information on the risks associated with bed-sharing," Ostfeld said. "Our intent was to discover more about this little-researched demographic breakdown, so we can better understand the risk factors for SUID in all groups and create culturally sensitive health messaging."

 

The researchers looked at the mortality rates of 83,000 New Jersey-born infants of Asian-Indian heritage over a 15-year period and safe sleep practices in a sampling of this population. Results showed that 97 percent of the surveyed American-born mothers of Asian-Indian heritage reported using a crib, compared to 69 percent of those who were foreign-born.

 

Although infants of the foreign-born mothers now residing in the United States had a higher SUID rate compared to infants of U.S.-born mothers of Asian-Indian heritage, for whom no SUID was recorded, the rate was still lower than that of other populations: From 2000 to 2015, infants of foreign-born mothers of Asian-Indian heritage had a SUID rate of 0.14 deaths per 1,000 live births, compared to 0.4 in white, 0.5 in Hispanic and 1.6 in black populations.

 

"Our study shows that improved compliance with American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines on supine sleep and avoiding bed-sharing is associated with a lower rate of SUID even in already low-risk groups," said Ostfeld. "Larger studies are needed to better understand the complex variables that affect risk in sharing a bed with an infant."

 

< Here >

[luisam]

15 hours ago, tao said:

From 2000 to 2015, infants of foreign-born mothers of Asian-Indian heritage had a SUID rate of 0.14 deaths per 1,000 live births, compared to 0.4 in white, 0.5 in Hispanic and 1.6 in black populations. 

 

I don't mean to dispute statements about the theme, just I feel that this classificacation of according to skin tone is rather an unprecise method and might conduce to incorrect results. As by now anyone should know, skin color is just an ETHNIC CHARACTERISTICS, but only one among a lot of those characteristics! There are no RACIAL differences because there is ony one human race! All the other humanoid races are by now extint, thousands of years ago! Just for an example there is no such "hispanic" ethnia. People from South America, Portugal and Spain generally present very diverse ethnic characteristics, even those coming from the same country! The same goes for the so called "black" population and of course, for those who have a clear skin color, called "whites". Just consider the striking differences between nordic, slavic, british, spanish and arabic "whites".

All this consideration is just to comment that I feel investigators should stop simplifying this ethnic classification simply on skin color.

[tao]

On Race and Medicine

Extract: However, while race itself is not a biological variable, groups that self-identify as a given race may share biologic characteristics that originated as a result of shared ancestry. For example, persons of African descent in the United States who self-identify as black or African American are more likely to have certain biologic traits that were ancestrally protective in Africa, such as heterozygosity for sickle cell disease, which helps to protect against malaria, or the newly described APOL1 gene, which protects against trypanosomiasis (Science, 329:841-45, 2010). Of course, the allele that conveys malaria protection in heterozygotes causes sickle cell disease in those carrying two copies, and persons homozygous for the protective form of APOL1 are at increased risk for kidney failure. Thus, in settings where malaria and trypanosomiasis are rare, these biological traits are disadvantageous and may impart adverse health consequences.

 

Other examples of biology correlating with race include the disparity among racial groups in the incidence of adverse effects noted with the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, a class of drugs commonly used to treat hypertension and congestive heart failure. When these drugs are used, there are higher rates of angioedema in blacks than nonblacks, and higher rates of medication discontinuation owing to drug-induced cough in both blacks and Asians. More recently, colleagues and I reported racial and age differences in mortality rates for persons with end-stage renal disease treated with dialysis: most US minorities, especially at the higher end of the age spectrum, paradoxically showed increased longevity (Clin J Am Soc Nephrol, 8:953-61, 2013). Further, Cassianne Robinson-Cohen at the University of Washington and colleagues found that lower serum vitamin D concentrations were associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease among white or Chinese participants, but not among black or Hispanic participants (JAMA, 310:179-88, 2013).

The role of race in medicine

These and related findings clearly support the presence of race-related variations in disease risk, disease progression, treatment response, and treatment-related side effects. As such, there remains an important role for race/ethnicity, as a marker for ancestry and often for culture, as well as other sociodemographic traits, in characterizing patients with respect to medical care. These variables can be helpful in understanding key aspects of health beliefs, health behaviors, access to care, and likely response to therapeutic interventions.

 

At the same time, we must be mindful that generalizations filtered through the lens of race/ethnicity and other sociodemographic factors should not be used indiscriminately. In the setting of increasing admixture within and across racial/ethnic groups in a diversifying United States, there is a lack of concordance between today’s patients and traditional racial stereotypes. Fortunately, genomic data are already beginning to predict disease risk and treatment response, and advances will no doubt continue to improve their accuracy. The ultimate goal is to arrive at a point where medicine becomes so personalized that it is driven from a “fingerprint” of one’s biologic makeup, not from racial typecasting.

 

[tao]

37 minutes ago, luisam said:

investigators should stop simplifying this ethnic classification simply on skin color.

Scientific progress depends upon observations -- from all angles -- with an open mind.  Individual and groups feelings have no place and must be set aside in scientific investigations. 

[dufus]

2 hours ago, tao said:

Scientific progress depends upon observations -- from all angles -- with an open mind.  Individual and groups feelings have no place and must be set aside in scientific investigations. 

 

agree

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School